Bill C-92 addresses the issue of social protection for Indigenous children and families. The Act works towards respect for the diversity of Indigenous populations, their rights, cultures, languages, history, and traditions (Bill C-92, 2019). Moreover, the policy aims to eliminate the gaps and improve the services provided to Indigenous children living in or outside of a reserve. The Act also targets Indigenous elders, parents, two-spirit individuals, and people with disabilities, as it affirms the obligation to consider “the unique circumstances and needs” of such populations (Bill C-92, 2019, p. 2). The main purpose of the policy is to terminate the Indigenous over-representation in Canada’s child welfare systems.
The Act is based on section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and supports the principles of a child’s best interests, substantive equality, and cultural continuity. The policy is financed by the Government of Canada, which “acknowledges the ongoing call for funding for child and family services that is predictable, stable, sustainable” (Bill C-92, 2019, p. 2). Additionally, the Act describes the circumstances that must be considered, such as the Indigenous child’s needs, cultural and religious heritage, unique cultural identity, preferences, traditions of care, and exposure to family violence. Overall, the document compensates for the lack of Indigenous laws and provides guidance for provincial and local authorities on family and child services. The policy’s primary goal is to improve child welfare by decreasing the number of First Nations, Inuit, and Metis children in the Canadian child welfare system.
The historical governmental policies towards the separation of Indigenous people led to the problem of the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in foster care. The Bill is the first attempt of the federal government to use its legislative power to improve the well-being of Indigenous children and families. The intention of Bill C-92 is “to both disrupt Indigenous children’s overrepresentation in child welfare proceedings and support Indigenous self-determination in decision-making related to child welfare” (Caldwell & Sinha, 2020, p. 1). Due to the complex and sensitive nature of the issue of child welfare, the policy is imperfect and has its strengths and weaknesses.
The main strength of the policy in terms of its development is the collaboration of policymakers with Indigenous governing bodies and communities. Moreover, the Act is subject to a five-year review, which requires the Minister to cooperate with Indigenous First Nations, Inuit, and Metis delegates to examine the policy’s effectiveness (Bill C-92, 2019). The Bill also strengthens the National Standards and legislation by attracting public attention to the issues of Aboriginal children in child welfare systems and preventing misinterpretations of the law via consistency (Metallic et al., 2019). The integration of the principles of the best interest of a child and cultural continuity serves as a foundation for positive change through advocation for the improvement of the well-being of Indigenous children and families.
Along with several strengths mentioned above, the policy has significant weaknesses related to its development and implementation. For instance, it does not consider the importance of self-determination and the relational needs of Indigenous families during child welfare investigations. Maltreatment reports reflect the unmet material needs or “the absence of appropriate care” but ignore the relational needs of a child (Caldwell & Sinha, 2020, p. 10). Furthermore, the policy does not offer mechanisms for reconciliation and remediation during neglect investigations. Additionally, Hahn et al. (2020) claim that the major weakness of the Bill for the First Nations is “the delegation of funding to the provinces” (p.1). Adequate funding requires a clear indication of parties responsible for fiscal arrangements, but the principle of substantive equality creates vagueness regarding Indigenous children living off-reserve. Cindy Blackstock also suggested that the Bill presented the Indigenous people with a bargain to “accept the flawed bill in its current state or get nothing” (as cited in Metallic et al., 2019, p. 4). Thus, the Bill lacks the instruments and procedures for the revision before or after its implementation, which deprives the Indigenous representatives of opportunities to propose meaningful changes or corrections.
The weaknesses of the policy demonstrate that it needs to be revised considering the demands of Aboriginal children or the feedback from Indigenous representatives. There are several meaningful ways to improve the current state of the policy. Firstly, the successful experience from the U.S. Indian Child Welfare Act might be utilized to prepare a plan for improving the outcomes of Indigenous children by encouraging self-determination and individualized focus on parents. The history of separation policies and current legislation for Indigenous children exposes the focus on material needs (protection, food, clothing) over relational ones, which should be considered as well. Secondly, the comprehensive framework for the assessment of child neglect cases should be developed, and current strategies for addressing such cases may be reformed. Thirdly, the funding should be tied to the policy, and the federal sources of financing for child welfare should be explicitly stated. Finally, the Bill should be open to revision and provide mechanisms allowing Indigenous representatives to participate in the development of amendments.
References
Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, S. C. 2019, c. 24, 2019. Web.
Caldwell, J., & Sinha, V. (2020). (Re) Conceptualizing neglect: Considering the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in child welfare systems in Canada. Child Indicators Research, 13(2), 481–512. Web.
Hahn, H., Caldwell, J., & Sinha, V. (2020). Applying lessons from the U.S. Indian Child Welfare Act to recently passed federal child protection legislation in Canada. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 11(3), 1–30. Web.
Metallic, N., Friedland, H., & Morales, S. (2019). The promise and pitfalls of C-92: An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families. Yellowhead Institute.